LANGUAGES AND CULTURES IN CONTACT
Departamento de Filología Inglesa 2015-2016
Final Master Thesis
Juan De la Dehesa’s Translation of Edmund Burke’s A Philosophical Enquiry into the Origin of our Ideas of the Sublime and Beautiful
Clara de Prada Rojo
The work presented in this MA thesis is, to the best of my knowledge and belief, original and my own work, except as acknowledged in the text. The work in this thesis has not been submitted, either in whole or in part, for a degree at this or any
other university.
This thesis is submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of
Master in Advanced English Studies: Languages and Cultures in Contact
to
Universidad de Valladolid
by
Clara de Prada Rojo
September 2016
Student’s signature__________________________________________
Approved
prof. María Eugenia Perojo Arronte
Abstract
This dissertation analyzes Juan De la Dehesa’s translation of Edmund Burke’s ‘A Philosophical Enquiry into the Origin of our Ideas of the Sublime and Beautiful’ written in 1807. The main purpose is to examine whether this translation achieves to fully translate the philosophical content of the text successfully taking into account different considerations such as the edition which has been translated; whether there is anything missing or if anything has been added; if the translation is from English to Spanish or a French translation has been used. For this the use of contemporary works such as historical dictionaries and other translation from English to Spanish will be used.
Page
1. Introduction 1
2. Theoretical Background 3
3. Methodology 10
4. Analysis 15
4.1 Pain 18
4.2 Pleasure 22
4.3 Terror 22
4.4 Taste 23
4.5 Emotion 24
4.6 Mind 26
4.7 Strike and Affect 27
4.8 Swell 29
4.9 Easy 30
4.10 Common people 31
4.11 Rude 32
5. Conclusion 33
1.
Introduction
The relevance of the concept of the sublime goes beyond rhetoric, where its origin dates back to Ancient Greece; however, in the eighteenth century, it developed a pertinent role in the domain of aesthetics, proper of the field of philosophy; in fact, it also became an important notion in literature, both in style and in storyline. From ancient epic to the romantic period and gothic literature, and particularly in that genre, the sublime has been a goal for many authors. One of the milestones in the development this term underwent was conceived by the Anglo-Irish author Edmund Burke (1729-1797). In his writing, A Philosophical Enquiry into the Origin of Our Ideas of the Sublime and Beautiful (1757), he examines what are exactly the concepts of the sublime and beauty.
The purpose of this dissertation is to examine both the translation and the original text to see how they differ from one another and if the translation makes an appropriate job in its intention to make Burke’s analysis of the concepts of the sublime and the beautiful available for the Spanish reader interested in this aesthetic matter. Something to take in consideration is that in contrast to literary writings, in which sometimes it is not as important to be as faithful to the original as possible and in which the various modifications and inventions may help to create a brilliant new piece of its own; in the philosophical field and more formal writings where there are complex concepts and where small aspects that may primarily seem inconsequential are actually relevant, the fewer alterations there are the better because as it has been explained before, most words have connotations that may seem unimportant but can radically change the meaning of a text and what is inferred from it by the reader (Lafarga and Pegenaute 211).
To do so, the translator prologue, the translation structure, and the actual translated text will be analyzed. Also, a list of terms will be given and examined separately to see details of the translation accuracy; among them some are terms with an important meaning in the field of aesthetics, and crucial to this philosophical treatise, and other words have debatable translations. To check for this accuracy, the Diccionario de autoridades, a historical dictionary contemporary to both writings, and the Historical Thesaurus of the Oxford English Dictionary will be used. Additionally, Munarriz’s translation of Blair’s Lectures on Rhetoric and Belles Lettres will be also be used with this purpose.
2.
Theoretical Background
The Pseudo-Longinus’ sublime has 5 main sources: grand conceptions, strong emotions, figures of speech, diction, and word arrangement. The three latter are concerned only with textual sources of sublimity, textual devices used to magnify a passage and give it that epic grandeur, emblematic of the sublime. However, the two first, grand conceptions and strong emotions, are particularly interesting to understand the transition of the sublime from rhetoric to aesthetics (Monk 14). Pseudo-Longinus argues that for a text to be sublime, it is a necessity for the author to have a certain inclination towards grand thoughts, therefore not everyone can write a sublime text, only people with a natural predisposition to these kind of thoughts can achieve sublime texts; in his own words, “Sublimity is the echo of a great soul. For it is not possible that men with mean and servile ideas and aims prevailing throughout their lives should produce anything that is admirable and worthy of immortality” (Doran 61; Hall 19; Cruz 1).
But not only a natural predisposition is necessary, it is specified for these grand thoughts to be intrinsically linked to moral values, which is to say that only men with immaculate morals have the possibility to create sublimity. Along with a grand thought, strong emotions are required to be able to produce sublimity in the reader or hearer, something that will be later largely developed by Burke in his treatise, and which is the point of connection between the reader and the writer. The author has to be able to express and translate his passion to his writings in a way that the readers will be able to feel them as if they were their own (Doran 49).
capacity towards grand thoughts without the proper education is not going to achieve it any better than someone with a deep understanding of the nature of the sublime text in the stylistic manner without the talent; if they are lacking one of the two things, they will create unavoidably an incomplete text. Proper of epic texts, where what is being narrated is characteristically sublime, the importance is to be able to transmit the passion of those actions which can be augmented by stylistic devices and with comparisons, but it must not be forced or overused because it may tire or distract the reader from the true source of sublimity (Doran 52).
The examples given by Pseudo-Longinus of true epic and sublime texts are the Iliad and Odyssey, or the beginning of the Bible, in the Genesis; writings which fame has long surpassed their times and have become timeless as they continue to provoke great passions among their readers throughout time, something that proofs their sublimity according to Pseudo-Longinus (Doran 54). Furthermore, Pseudo-Longinus defends that the first two notions are the most important ones and that the rest, the stylistic additions, are mostly unnecessary and their overproduction may only corrupt the text and take away the reader’s attention from the real source of the sublime, the subject of the text, those grand thoughts and strong emotions (Doran 80).
31). Another important figure is John Dennis, who introduces the connection of terror with the sublime in his book Miscellanies (1693), an idea that will stay connected to the concept of the sublime from then onwards. In fact, it is the most remarkable feature of the sublime throughout its development and something that will carry a lot of importance in the Romantic and Gothic imaginary and that will create a very distinctive setting for their novels (Doran 133; González Moreno 31; Monk 52). It is also an idea that Burke will expand on in his treatise.
He also makes a comparison and differentiation of the concepts of beauty and the sublime, two ideas that have long been introduced and related one to another but without delimiting the two of them clearly; they were known to be different but no one before had been able set them apart, to make the dividing line explicit. At the beginning of his treatise, Burke explains the idea of Taste, in a basic level every single person has the same preferences, this means that the feelings and perceptions that are received by the human senses do not differ from one to another, therefore, the primary emotions and perceptions should be the same in a basic level:
All the natural powers in man, which I know, that are conversant about external objects, are the senses; the imagination; and the judgment … But as there will be little doubt that bodies present similar images to the whole species, it must necessarily be allowed, that the pleasures and the pains which every object excites in one man, it must raise in all mankind. (Burke 13)
beneath anything sublime, the zenith; and pain, true pain devoid of any pleasure, cannot be sublime because no one can enjoy pain by itself (Burke 32).
Therefore, if pleasure can only incite beauty and pain cannot produce enjoyment, it must be the mixture of the two what creates sublimity; if it is by removal of pleasure, it creates a kind of pain that is not truly painful, it creates suffering due to absence, and if it is pain what is removed, that creates a contentment due to relief, these situations where pain and pleasure are interconnected are the ones that may trigger sublimity in an individual. Taking these notions and translating them into a text, it is only when the situations described have the capacity to move the reader into feeling such complex passions when the text can be described as sublime (Burke 39). The following quote is under the Section VII: of the Sublime:
Whatever is fitted in any sort to excite the ideas of pain and danger, that is to say, whatever is in any sort terrible, or is conversant about terrible objects, or operates in a manner analogous to terror, is a source of the sublime; that is, it is productive of the strongest emotion which the mind is capable of feeling. (Burke 39)
cause strong emotions in them, but they are able to find pleasure in it knowing it is a distant event (Burke 134). Another source of sublimity is nature and its proportions, the sublimity of landscape that will be used repeatedly in literature and painting.
Terror and wonder engendered the emotional bases of a sublime aesthetic response to wild nature... Tremendous mountains, deep valleys, and cataclysmic storms...were typical subjects of sublime landscapes. (qtd. in Smith n.p.”)
In this way a sea or an ocean can only be esteemed as sublime, as their width cannot be taken in by our mind, one finds oneself overwhelmed by their nature and it is not possible to fully comprehend their extension. Which takes us to the next step in Kant’s theory, when is an idea beautiful and when is it sublime? The path to follow is very similar to the one described before, the breaking point is whether the human mind can fully comprehend the nature of the concept or if one can only reason its implications, in other words, if they can be understood or if they can only be reasoned. Therefore, if something can be understood, it means that it can be fully comprehended, so it is a beautiful thought; however, if the mind struggles to delimit and discern all the connotations derived from it, then it can only be reasoned and therefore it is sublime (Doran 228; Barreto 290; Cruz 4; González Moreno 35). This is also an explanation to why there are so many discussions and why it is so complex to describe the concept of sublimity itself, and why it has been confused with the idea of beauty over the centuries. It is worth to note that, as Burnham mentions, due to the importance that the ideas of reason and freedom held for Kant, the sublime has a noticeable trace of that morality which Pseudo-Longinus had connected to it and which Burke had glanced over (IEP Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy).
3.
Methodology
and which kinds, if there were any impediments on the task of writing, and on the other hand, to see if the language itself is different or has developed in some way that may make the translation adequate for its time but unsatisfactory for present day standards.
Due to the growth of cultural exchanges between Spain and Great Britain the number of translations in Spain increased exponentially in the eighteenth century, especially in the second half and at the beginning of the nineteenth century. The problems that Spain had had until the second half of the eighteenth century were mainly three: firstly, the principal philosophical trend in England was the Empiricism of Locke and Hume, which was taken with scepticism by the prevailing traditional thought (Lafarga and Pegenaute 292); secondly, up until then most of the foreign influences were taken from the French, the previous animosity between England and Spain made the latter reticent to accept the former’s influence and it was not until Spain started to reject the French previously large influence due to the Napoleonic invasion that this started to change (Lafarga and Pegenaute 328).
acceptable within the Spanish context (Lafarga and Pegenaute 280). In fact, most of them were translated about 50 years later than their original publication as a consequence of Spanish censorship (Lafarga and Pegenaute 281).
While it is true that Spain had opened its frontiers to the cultural relationships with other countries, that does not mean that there was a total freedom for cultural exchange or freedom of opinion, in fact at that time there was not only one type of censorship, but two: one by the government, which was preventive, and one by the Church, a repressive one (Perojo 192). One of the problems with the censorship system was that, even after the Inquisition lost part of its power, with the subterfuge of literature having to be useful many books were forbidden. One example provided by Perojo is the translation of Blair’s Lectures on Rhetoric and Belles Lettres made by Agustín Munárriz; in this work the translator added his opinion about Spanish literature, which was severely criticized by his literary opponents, some of them involved in the censorship system of the time, and although his translation was approved by the government, and in fact it had been published as four different volumes, a Compendium of this work was censored in 1805 and not published until 1815, even though the translation of the whole work had already been issued (199).
figure for both Spanish writers and Spanish media, especially in the years 1828-37 (Lafarga and Pegenaute 380-2; Lafarga 321). Emilia Pardo Bazán, for instance, was highly influenced by the Gothic fiction, more particularly by Ann Radcliffe, Mary Shelley, and the Brontë sisters, authors she “unconditionally praises” (Teneiro Prego, 63) along with Jane Austen, Bram Stoker and Lord Byron, and proves to be familiar with Burke’s Enquiry (Teneiro Prego, 77).
The principal problematic issue regarding the eighteenth and nineteenth century translations is the matter of accuracy. In many cases, the translator would change large parts of the text and sometimes replace it with his own ideas, as it is reflected in this quote:
Cuando traduzca lo haré libremente, y jamás al pie de la letra; alteraré, mudaré, quitaré o añadiré lo que me pareciere a propósito para mejorar el original, y reformaré hasta el plan y la conducta de la fábula cuando juzgue que así conviene. (Cándido María Trigueros, apud Lafarga and Pegenaute 211)
original author’s style, but with poetry, the style, rhythm, and rhyme are issues of utmost importance and, therefore, the translation process and the decisions are very different (Lafarga and Pegenaute 211; Enríquez Aranda 16).
In regards to the analysis of the translation, several things will be considered. First of all, a brief introduction to the translator will be made. Then, the translation process of the Enquiry will be examined to see what type of translation it is, whether it was translated from English or if there are signs that it was originally translated to French and then translated into Spanish; for this, not only De la Dehesa’s prologue will be taken into account, but also aspects such as the structure of the sentences, the content of the translation, whether there is something missing or added, and some further information about the translation will be given.
Following this, some words will be further analyzed; among them there will be important concepts that are essential for the complete comprehension of the Enquiry, concepts with a relevant rhetorical meaning; and some of the words will be translations that may be controversial. For this, three sources will be used to examine their accuracy or their lack of correctness: the Historical Thesaurus of the Oxford English Dictionary will be used to take the possible meanings that a given word can have and then the Diccionario de autoridades, contemporary to this translation, will be used for its Spanish counterpart.
translation was published not long before De la Dehesa’s, but also because many of the words appear in it. In fact, Burke’s Enquiry was a very influential work for the author of the Lectures, and there is a relevant mention of it in Blair’s work. Once all the words have been examined, an overall analysis will be given about the translation and it will be determined whether this translation manages to successfully transfer this part of British culture into the Spanish one (Even-Zohar 62; Enríquez Aranda 110).
4.
Analysis
According to the records of the Biblioteca nacional de España and Catálogo colectivo del patrimonio bibliográfico español, De la Dehesa’s translation was published in Alcalá, Oficina de la Real Universidad, in 1807, the first being also the only edition. However, there are 29 copies registered in the Catálogo colectivo del patrimonio bibliográfico español spread throught several libraries and universities, which shows that it was well received. De la Dehesa begins his translation with a brief introduction into the ideas of the beautiful and the sublime, giving information taken from the French Encyclopedia and declaring to have found a French translation of the Enquiry at the University of Alcalá written anonymously in 1763. Right after that he compares his translation with the French one, apparently the other translator made his translation too scientific and strained; however, De la Dehesa’s translation manages to get a better approach and successfully reaches a balance between correctness and naturalness, at least in his opinion.
The original version is composed of the following parts: the introduction on taste and five parts with their corresponding sections: Part I has 19 sections, Part II has 22 sections, Part III has 27 sections, Part IV has 25 sections, and Part V has 7 sections; the translated version has the same sections with the same titles. Reading the translation and comparing it to the original it seems to be translated almost word-to-word, there is not a single passage missing and there are no additions made by De la Dehesa; all changes are made so that the Spanish version sounds natural to the reader, but there is no information missing. This indicates that the translation has indeed been made from the original English version into Spanish, since it would be almost impossible for a translation of a translation to be as close to the original as this translation is. Furthermore, the level of information given at the beginning shows a detailed knowledge of the treatise which also suggests a direct translation.
particularly, Burke establishes the origins of sublimity in the feelings of pain and pleasure.
All of them have a capital role in the text as they are the base to understand the idea of the sublime. Therefore, the Spanish rendering counterpart of these terms are fundamental for an accurate translation. For this, a number of texts will be used to determine the accuracy of the translation to successfully convey the original meaning and its philosophical and cultural background: the Historical Thesaurus of the Oxford English Dictionary, the Diccionario de autoridades de la Real Academia Española, and the translation of Blair’s Lectures on Rhetoric and Belles Lettres made by Munárriz, the last two contemporary works that could have been employed by De la Dehesa himself in the translation process.
4.1 Pain
One of the first and most important concepts that Burke uses to delimit the origins of the sublime is the necessity of pain. As it has been explained before, Burke, and therefore his perception of the sublime, is based on Empiricism, and more precisely on the senses. According to him, pain is one of the first feelings that any human being experiences, for instance, it is because of the pain of hunger why babies cry. As one grows older this feeling of pain can be expanded and classified into more particular types of pain, but nevertheless, it is a global experience for everyone.
corporal. Latín. Dolor. Molestia”. It is true that “pena” is a direct translation of “pain”, and that the same term was used in other translations, nevertheless, in the following fragments “pain” is translated with two different words whereas in the original it is the same word:
a.“Therefore, to clear up the nature of these qualities, it may be necessary to explain the nature of pain and pleasure on which they depend” (Burke 131) translated as “Así que, para aclarar la naturaleza de estas qualidades, puede ser necesario explicar la del dolor y del placer, de los quales dependen” (De la Dehesa 175)
b. “For hence I conclude that pain, and fear, act upon the same parts of the body, and in the same manner, though somewhat differing in degree” (Burke 131-132) translated as “De esto infiero que la pena y el temor obran sobre las mismas partes del cuerpo, y del mismo modo, aunque se diferencien algo con respecto á su grado” (De la Dehesa 176)
c.“The only difference between pain and terror, is that things which cause pain operate in the mind, by the intervention of the body” (Burke 132) translated as “La única diferencia que hay entre la pena y el temor, es que las cosas que causan dolor, obran sobre el ánimo por medió del cuerpo” (De la Dehesa 176).
the following excerpt, De la Dehesa changes once again his chosen translation for “painful” and introduces another word in the same paragraph:
It is Mr. Locke's opinion, that darkness is not naturally an idea of terror; and that, though an excessive light is painful to the sense, the greatest excess of darkness is no ways troublesome. He observes indeed in another place, that a nurse or an old woman having once associated the ideas of ghosts and goblins with that of darkness, night, ever after, becomes painful and horrible to the imagination. (Burke 143)
Mr. Locke opina que la obscuridad no es naturalmente una idea de terror, y que aunque es dolorosa para el sentido la excesiva luz, de ningun modo es penoso el exceso de obscuridad. Observa también en otra parte que la noche se hace mas penosa y horrible á la imaginacion, despues que alguna vieja ó nodriza ha asociado una vez las ideas de fantasmas y duendes á la obscuridad. (De la Dehesa 194)
While “dolor” and “doloroso” are not the words initially chosen by De la Dehesa, they are also used to translate “pain” and “painful” in the text, something that can make the translation seem inconsistent and even be confusing because in some places “pena” is used as “pain” whereas in others it is used as sadness, and then “dolor” is also introduced in the text. To understand why he makes this separation, it is important to have its description and compare it to the ones above:
en llegando a dañar, molestar o alterar el órgano o assiento del sentido, cáusa el dolor, que es lo que nos inquieta y desplace. (Diccionario de autoridades 1737)
Both “pena” and “dolor” are acceptable translations for “pain”, however, “dolor” is more specifically related to physical pain and probably the reason why in the instances specified above the translator chose to change the term to be more explicit in the type of pain that was being described. Then why choose “pena”? Apart from the fact that it does mean “pain”, it is probable that De la Dehesa was influenced by Munárriz, who also translates “pain” as “pena” in his translation of Blair’s Lessons, not only this was one of the few books translated directly from English into Spanish at that time, but it also talks precisely about Burke’s Enquiry and about the necessary emotions of “pain” and “terror” derived from the sublime, as it can be seen in the following quotes:
The author of “a Philosophical inquiry into the Origin of our Ideas of the Sublime and Beautiful,” to whom we are indebted for several ingenious and original thoughts upon this subject, proposes a formal theory upon this foundation; That terror is the sources of the Sublime, and that no objects have this character but such as produce impressions of pain and danger. (Blair 31)
carácter, sino los que nos hacen impresión de terror y de pena. (Munárriz 71)
The fact that De la Dehesa introduces “dolor” is relevant to this analysis because it would have been easier for De la Dehesa to follow the same path Munárriz took; after all, Munárriz’s translation was considerably popular. Nevertheless, he chooses to make an explicit division between “pena”, which could be considered as a broader “pain”, and “dolor” to emphasize the importance of the senses, the physicality of the sensualist Empirical philosophy, which was not extensively spread within the Spanish tradition.
4.2 Pleasure
Pleasure is one of the two pillars of the sublime, the contrary concept of pain. By itself, pleasure can conceive beauty, strong emotions which the human beings seek all throughout their lives, yet, once these pleasures converge with some sort of pain, they create the highest existing concept, the sublime. As it happens with pain, it is, once again, a notion intrinsic to the sensualist Empiricism, an idea irrevocably attached to the senses, to the body, and to passion. De la Dehesa translates it as “placer”, a fitting translation for this term as it conveys this same notion of physicality without it being the only aspect it suggests, as one of the entries that the Diccionario de autoridades, 1737 edition, gives is “Gusto, contento, alegría, regocijo o diversión”.
Another concept which is essential in the conception of sublimity is “terror”. It has been explained that the two main sources of the sublime are pain and pleasure, yet, “terror” is a specific kind of pain, one caused by fear. Burke affirms: “terror is in all cases whatsoever, either more openly or latently the ruling principle of the sublime” (58). But what is the difference between the two? The following excerpt explains it:
The only difference between pain and terror, is, that things which cause pain operate on the mind, by the intervention of the body; whereas things that cause terror generally affect the bodily organs by the operation of the mind suggesting the danger; but both agreeing, either primarily, or secondarily, in producing a tension, contraction, or violent emotion of the nerves. (Burke 132)
Once more, the distinction is about the physicality that terror implies, which “fear” does not necessarily possess; in the same way “dolor” gives the implied meaning of bodily pain, “terror” gives this connotation that “fear” does not obligatorily carry. In De la Dehesa’s translation, “terror” is a translation shared with “fear”. But this predilection to translate both “terror” and “fear” as “terror” rather than just by “miedo” is not a coincidence, “terror” accentuates this sensory connotation that “miedo” would have missed and that is compulsory to highlight in some of the instances.
The importance of the senses has been explained all throughout this dissertation; as a matter of fact, it is so important to the idea of the sublime that Burke adds an introduction to the concept of Taste in the second edition of the Enquiry. This word, “taste”, is semantically very rich as it has many acceptations ranging from the ones dealing exclusively with the senses i.e. the sense of taste, the sense of touch, to have experienced something; to the more metaphoric meanings such as: sense of what is appropriate, to have a preference, to have a stylish or aesthetic discernment (Oxford Historical Thesaurus). Thus it is an ideal word to explain the connection that the sensualist Empiricism makes between the real world and one’s perception of it.
The chosen translation for “taste” is “gusto”, a fitting adaptation as it has very similar meanings, whether related to the senses: “Uno de los cinco sentidos corporales, que reside en la lengua”, “Se toma tambien por el sabor que tienen en sí las mismas cosas”; or otherwise: “Significa algunas veces elección: y assí se dice, Fulano es hombre de buen gusto”, “Vale tambien complacéncia, deléite o deseo de alguna cosa”, “Significa assimismo propria voluntad, determinación, o arbitrio” (Diccionario de autoridades 1734). And it was important to come up with a translation like this, as Burke uses “taste” in the Enquiry with all of these meanings. Munárriz agrees with this translation, although Blair uses “taste” with the metaphorical sense rather than with the physicality that Burke’s treatise requires.
4.5 Emotion
feelings, both metaphorically and sensory, appear. But feelings derive into emotion only when they cause a significant impression on the mind. The Historical Thesaurus of the Oxford English Dictionary gives the following description for “emotion”: “Originally: an agitation of mind; an excited mental state. Subsequently: any strong mental or instinctive feeling, as pleasure, grief, hope, fear, etc., deriving esp. from one's circumstances, mood, or relationship with others” (1602, 1660, 1712) but also as “Movement; disturbance, perturbation; an instance of this” (1594, 1652, 1692, 1708).
“Emotion” is translated as “movimiento”, meaning “Se toma por alteración, inquietúd o conmoción” and “Se toma tambien por el ímpetu de alguna passión con que empieza a manifestarse” (Diccionario de autoridades 1734). Considering that they have the same meanings it does not strike as something peculiar at first. Traditionally, it was used together with “conmover” in the rhetorical tradition, but De la Dehesa chooses it rather than “conmover” thus highlighting the physicality that feelings can have in the human being, as it can be seen in the following examples: “The first and the simplest emotion which we discover in the human mind is curiosity” (Burke 31); “El primero y el mas simple movimiento que descubrimos en el corazon humano, es la curiosidad” (De la Dehesa 25). Besides, the word “move” was the one traditionally used in the English rhetorical context, so there is maintained with this choice the rhetorical original background of the concept of the sublime.
1 From now onwards the references given by the Historical Thesaurus of the Oxford
English Dictionary will be followed by the dates of the examples of the entry until the date of
4.6 Mind
“Mind” is a complicated word in this translation, charged with philosophical connotations, which are not reflected in the Spanish translation chosen for it, “corazón”. There is clearly a cultural chasm between both texts in this respect, an illustration for it can be found in literature. Traditionally in the English novel there was a high intellectual weight, of course passions were important as England had an empiricist tradition, but the writings were aimed to have a moral purpose; good examples of this are Samuel Richardson’s Pamela, Henry Fielding’s Amelia, and Jane Austen’s Sense and Sensibility. However, due to the Spanish tradition, distanced from the British empiricism, on account of the problems with censorship, in the translation of these novels this intellectual intention is lost and only the sensitive side remains obtaining the name of “novelas lacrimógenas”.
Whether De la Dehesa knew the intended meaning and the tradition of the English novel of the eighteenth century cannot be known. He translates “mind” as “corazón”, described as “Vale assimismo ánimo, espíritu” in the Diccionario de autoridades, 1729 edition; and also as “animo”, explained as “El alma, el espiritu que hace discurrir y moverse los animáles” (1726). It is probable that he decided to translate it as such carried by the lack of a modern philosophical tradition in Spain and also by the recent Spanish tradition of sentimental literature.
corazon humano, es la curiosidad” (De la Dehesa 25). It is evident that these translations are not very accurate in relation to the intended meaning of the original, but they were chosen due to cultural differences.
4.7 Strike and Affect
These two terms are included in the same section because, similarly to what happens with “pain” having two translations, while in the original work they are two words, in the Spanish version they are at times translated with the same word, and at times translated with another one. They are translated as “herir”, which means “golpear, dar con algo en alguna parte” and “Romper el continuo del cuerpo del animal con algún instrumento, o darle golpe: y por extensión en otro qualquier cuerpo” (Diccionario de autoridades 1734). “Herir” is used for both terms even though the description given by the entries do not match the meaning of “strike” and “affect”, at least not the ones that are relevant for the writing, as it can be seen in the following quotes:
a. “Is it not wrapt up in the shades of its own incomprehensible darkness, more awful, more striking, more terrible, than the liveliest description, than the clearest painting, could possibly represent it?” (Burke 63) translated as “¿No es mas terrible y respetuosa, y no hiere mas que como la mas viva descripcion y la pintura mas clara pudieran representarla?” (De la Dehesa 63)
imagination long after the first sounds have ceased to affect it. … The senses, strongly affected in some one manner, cannot quickly change their tenor, or adapt themselves to other things. (Burke 73)
Despues de una larga sucesion de ruidos, como el fracaso de las aguas, como el golpeo de los martillos de fragua, los martillos golpean todavía, y las aguas braman en la imaginacion, quando ya han dexado de herirla los primeros sonidos. … Quando los sentidos han recibido una impresion fuerte, no pueden mudar prontamente de tenor, ó adaptarse á otras cosas. (De la Dehesa 90)
Dehesa to transmit the same metaphorical meaning that “strike” has for the English reader and which is so relevant for the empirical background of the original text.
Likewise, “herir” is not the only translation that “affect” has, “mover” is also used in the text. In this case, the translation is more transparent, meaning: “Metaphoricamente vale dar motivo para alguna cosa, persuadir, inducir o incitar a ella. Y por extensión se dice de los afectos del ánimo, que inclinan o persuaden a hacer alguna cosa” (Diccionario de autoridades 1734). Its adequacy can be seen in the following quotes: “Now, as words affect, not by original power, but by representation, it might be supposed, that their influence over the passions should be light” (Burke 173) and its translation, “No moviendo,pues, las palabras por alguna virtud originaria , sino por representacion , pudiera suponerse que su influencia en las pasiones habia de ser muy ligera” (De la Dehesa 237); as it has been explained before in the section for “emotion”, “mover” is also the word of the Spanish rhetorical tradition together with “conmover”, and more suitable in this case since it conveys this sense of physicality.
4.8 Swell
At other times, the translations for it are: once again “hinchazón”, although with the sense of “Translaticiamente significa vanidad, presunción, sobérbia o engreimiento” (Diccionario de autoridades 1734); and “engreimiento”, which means “Presunción, elación y altivez con que uno se ensoberbece y entona” (Diccionario de autoridades 1732). These translations are used in the following extract: “produces a sort of swelling and triumph, that is extremely grateful to the human mind; and this swelling is never more perceived” (Burke 50), translated as “produce una especie de hinchazon y triunfo, que es extremadamente agradable al espíritu humano; y este engreimiento nunca se percibe mejor” (De la Dehesa 53). De la Dehesa thus maintains the literal translation at least once thus conveying the idea of physicality needed to achieve the sublime.
4.9 Easy
The problem with this translation is that it may imply for some readers that the gradation of beauty is not perceived, and whereas in other contexts “insensible” may convey the idea that the transition is soft and “easy”, it is may be a debatable translation because in the text Burke is explaining that there are different degrees that can be perceived, which is the opposite to what “insensible” means. This is clearly not the same meaning, however, what De la Dehesa does with this is to once more introduce the senses as the main source of the aesthetic experience, and manifest the relevance that feeling and the body has in our minds. Instead of using a word to express physicality, he uses “insensible”, a word that expresses the non-physicality of an experience, keeping the reader within the semantic field of the senses.
4.10 Common People
In comparison to the words analyzed above, “common people” is only used once and therefore there are not problems of inconsistency, however, the translation chosen for it is questionable as the English meaning is: “The common body of the people of any place; the community or commonalty; spec. the body of free burgesses of a free town or burgh; sometimes, the commonwealth or state, as a collective entity” (1645) or “The common people, as distinguished from those of rank or dignity; the commonalty. Often viewed politically as an estate of the realm” (1581, 1616, 1664) (Oxford Historical Thesaurus).
please our common people, because they banish care, and all consideration of future or present evils” (Burke 15) compared to “Los licores fermentados agradan á nuestro populacho, porque destierran los cuidados, y toda consideracion de los males presentes y futuros” (De la Dehesa 8). It is obvious, looking at the two of them, that the meaning in the Spanish rendering is pejorative whereas in the English one it is not necessarily such a thing. Yet, the explanation for this may be cultural, as it has been explained before, England had a long history of democracy, Spain however did not. Both Burke and De la Dehesa were conspicuously involved in the field of political though, but their political culture was obviously different and this translation is a reflection of that difference between the British and the Spanish cultures at that time.
4.11 Rude
Another word in which the meaning in the translation is changed is “rude”, although in this case it is the other way around, the original meaning is derogatory and the translated version is not necessarily so. “Rude” means: “Not gentle, violent, harsh; giving out unkind or severe treatment; marked by unkind or severe treatment of people or living things” (1623, 1693, 1733, 1760), “Devoid of, or deficient in, culture or refinement; uncultured, unrefined. Also in stronger sense: uncivilized, barbarous” (1609, 1624, 1697, 1732), and “Unmannerly, uncivil, impolite; offensively or deliberately discourteous” (1598, 1617, 1674, 1711) (Oxford Historical Thesaurus).
the countryside. A small change of meaning that can be seen in the following extract: “The rude hearer is affected by the principles which operate in these arts even in their rudest condition; and he is not skilful enough to perceive the defects” (Burke 28), rendered as “El rústico oyente se mueve conforme á los principios que obran en estas artes, aun quando están en la mayor tosquedad, y él no tiene la habilidad suficiente para percibir sus defectos” (De la Dehesa 22).
This is another instance where the difference between the British and the Spanish historical and cultural backgrounds is evidenced. “Rude” refers to lack of refinement, no matter whether the setting for it is rural or urban, whereas this lack of refinement is marked as rural with “rústico”. By the time, in the British context, the Industrialization had already begun and most people were working in cities. In Spain, on the contrary, the majority of the population lived and worked in the countryside. Obviously Burke’s and De la Dehesa’s perspectives regarding where unrefined people can be found do not coincide.
5.
Conclusion
With all this information, it can be said that Juan De la Dehesa’s translation of A Philosophical Enquiry into the Origin of our Ideas of the Sublime and the Beautiful written by Edmund Burke does successfully manage to transfer this philosophical treatise into the Spanish culture. An idea to further research into this subject would be to investigate the direct impact of the translation among contemporary thinkers, critics and writers to properly assess its relevance in the Spanish literary and intellectual context.
Works Cited
Barreto, Waldir. “The Sublime: from word to Silence”. Mirabilia: Revista Eletrônica de História Antiga e Medieval 18 (2014): 255-302. Print.
Blair, Hugh. Lecciones sobre la retorica y las bellas letras, for Hugo Blair. las tradujo del ingles don Josef Luis Munarriz. TOMOS I-IV. Madrid: La Imprenta Real, 1804. PDF.
Blair, Hugh. Lectures of Rhetoric and Belles Lettres. Trans. Ed. Thomas Dale. London: N.p. 1845. PDF.
Burke, Edmund. A Philosophical Enquiry into the Origin of our Ideas of the Sublime and Beautiful. Ed. James T. Boulton. Indiana: University of Notre Dame Press, 1968. Print.
Burnham, Douglas. “Immanuel Kant: Aesthetics”. IEP: Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy. N.p. n.d. Web.
Cruz, Francisco. “Estética de lo sublime”. Analecta: revista de humanidades 1 (2006): 135-142. Print.
De Urquijo y Goitia, José Ramon. Gobiernos y ministros españoles en la edad contemporánea. Madrid: Consejo Superior de Investigaciones Científicas, 2008. Web.
Diccionario de autoridades (1726-1739) Real Academia Española. (2016). n. d. Web
Doran, Robert. The Theory of the Sublime from Longinus to Kant. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2015. Print.
Enríquez Aranda, María Mercedes. Recepción y traducción. Síntesis y crítica de una relación interdisciplinaria. Málaga: Universidad de Málaga, 2007. Print.
Even-Zohar, Itamar. Papers in Culture Research. Tel Aviv: Tel Aviv University, 2010. PDF.
González Moreno, Beatriz. Lo sublime, lo gótico y lo romántico: la experiencia Estética en el romanticismo inglés. Cuenca: Ediciones de la Universidad de Castilla-La Mancha, 2007. Print.
Hall, Vernon. A Short History of Literary Criticism. London: The Merlin Press, 1963. PDF.
Historical Thesaurus of Oxford Dictionaries. Oxford University Press. n.d. Web.
Lafarga, Francisco and Luis Pegenaute, editors. Historia de la traducción en España. Salamanca: Editorial AMBOS MUNDOS, 2004. PDF.
Monk, Samuel H. The Sublime. A Study of Critical Theories in XVIII-Century England. Toronto: The University of Michigan Press, 1960. Print.
Perojo Arronte, Mª Eugenia. “Spanish Romanticism and the Struggle for Legitimation: Translation, Censorship and the Development of the Movement”. The Power of the Pen. Translation & Censorship in Nineteenth-century Europe. Ed. Denise Merk1e, Carol O' Sullivan, Luc van Doorslaer and Miehaela Wolf. Berlin: Lit Verlag, 2010: 191-211. PDF.
Schiera, Pierangelo. El constitucionalismo como discurso político. Trans. Adela Mora Cañada and Manuel Martínez Neira. Madrid: Universidad Carlos III, 2012. Web. Smith, Laura. “Keywords Glossary: Beautiful, Sublime”. The University of Chicago.
N.p. Winter 2003. Web.
“Sublime (philosophy)” New World Encyclopedia. N.p. 24 October 2015. Web.
Teneiro Prego, José Carlos. Gothic, Gender and Regenerationism in Emilia Pardo Bazán’s Galicia. Doctoral Thesis. University of Exeter, 2013. PDF